politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » POLL ALERT: Labour has a ‘Corbyn problem’ and it’s not going a

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

MarqueeMark said:

On topic - those Farron numbers are awful. Right person as party leader: Jeremy Corbyn 24%, Tim Farron 25%. He is only saved because so many people don't know who he is still. Which is damning in its own right.

I expect a whole series of threads with observations like "The above numbers clearly show that Tim Farron is part of the problem....The solution is obvious. The LibDems need new leadership. Whether it will get it (and when) is anybody’s guess."

That depends on quite what you think Farron's jobs as Lib Dem leader is. He is not going to be PM, and if he has any sense he knows that. Instead he has to rebuild the party. I tipped him as next Lib Dem party leader back in 2012 or so for exactly that reason.

The local election results and the Richmond Park by-election indicate he's on a good path. His important audience is inside his party and would-be and past supporters.

Corbyn, on the other hand, is in a position (however unlikely) to be PM. His audience should be as much of the electorate as possible. I say should be, as he's rather spectacularly failing at that.

Nice attempt at a swerve, but the numbers are for being party leader, not Prime Minister. No-one was going to answer thinking Farron for PM. It means - best case - the voters have no confidence for him to be deputy PM in a coalition.

No swerve.

"No-one was going to answer thinking Farron for PM."

I think you over-estimate the effectiveness of this sort of polling. As an example: to be able to say whether someone's doing a good job, you'd need to have a fairly good idea of what the leader's doing, and perhaps even other alternatives within the party. Many people would for Corbyn, May and perhaps even Nuttall after recent events. Farron is much more anonymous.

If you haven't heard of the leader, or only vaguely heard of them, you're likely to reply they're not doing a good job.

And yes, that's a mild criticism. But only a mild one, as that's not what his main job is at the moment. Lib Dems wll very much know who he is. He is not 'saved' because so few people know who he is; the polling is because of it.

Basically: IMV this sort of polling becomes rather inaccurate when you get to the smaller parties who do not get the same airtime.

You re relying on polling over the results in real-life elections. But as someone pointed out below, Gorton's going to be another test for Farron.

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

There was a 9.2% swing from the Conservatives to Labour in Gorton in 2015. An astonishing result given the national trends. I don't think I have seen a bigger swing in favour of Labour at that election.

Of course it was results like this that made the Labour vote so much less efficient than it had been in the Blair landslides. Piling up votes where they did least good.

I think Corbyn exacerbates that tendency too. He does appeal to a hard core Labour supporter far more left wing that the country as a whole. Kieran's analysis shows that this is at the cost of repelling those whose support is needed to do well overall. If that is right then the current polling/electoral models probably understate the damage he would do in an election campaign.

I'd have thought Manchester Gorton (like Brighton, Cambridge, Bristol West, and left-wing inner London) is Corbynism ground zero.

If nothing else it should tell us about the measure of his current appeal in his heartlands.

Hmm...won't we get a really chronic turnout after a very low key campaign where most the parties are reluctant to spend much on a foregone conclusion? Labour will then blame an apparent fall in support of the loss of a very "popular" MP.

And that the by-election will almost certainly be on May 4th, alongside the locals. Most people's attention will be elsewhere, so it will probably be a safe hold on a low turnout. Unless of course every Lib Dem in Manchester spends the next few weeks doing nothing except knocking doors.

I wonder if "success" there will be used to cover up a poor performance in the locals.

DavidL said:

Mortimer said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

There was a 9.2% swing from the Conservatives to Labour in Gorton in 2015. An astonishing result given the national trends. I don't think I have seen a bigger swing in favour of Labour at that election.

Of course it was results like this that made the Labour vote so much less efficient than it had been in the Blair landslides. Piling up votes where they did least good.

I think Corbyn exacerbates that tendency too. He does appeal to a hard core Labour supporter far more left wing that the country as a whole. Kieran's analysis shows that this is at the cost of repelling those whose support is needed to do well overall. If that is right then the current polling/electoral models probably understate the damage he would do in an election campaign.

I'd have thought Manchester Gorton (like Brighton, Cambridge, Bristol West, and left-wing inner London) is Corbynism ground zero.

If nothing else it should tell us about the measure of his current appeal in his heartlands.

Hmm...won't we get a really chronic turnout after a very low key campaign where most the parties are reluctant to spend much on a foregone conclusion? Labour will then blame an apparent fall in support of the loss of a very "popular" MP.

Perfect seat for a returning prince over the water, mind.

Whether of the Balls or Miliband variety....

Now that would be interesting.

I've had a tenner at averaged odds of 75/1 on Balls for next leader.

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.

it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson

What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?

The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.

Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.

Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.

Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?

Good morning, everyone.

Oscars - four bets, zero winners. Ho hum.

F1: testing starts in one minute, huzzah!

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.

it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson

What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?

The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.

Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.

Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.

Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?

I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.

it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson

What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?

The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.

There's no reason to believe that similar cases didn't occur at any stage after we introduced immigration controls for Commonwealth nationals.

If this attitude prevails, Labour are doomed

https://twitter.com/anyabike/status/836118324207562752

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.

it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson

What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?

The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.

Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.

Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.

Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?

I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.

The original refusal of Indefinite Leave to Remain was in 1999........the lady has had three governments and 18 years to make her case.....what has any of this to do with Brexit?

ThreeQuidder said:

danielmawbs said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.

IM to sure if you are joking but if you are being serious then I'd like to say it is exactly this kind of sentiment that is pushing more people over to "the right".

Leave was a vote for individuals own choices, the majority are decent people who were sick of of being lied to for the past 40 years, wanted sovereignty, wanted to be in control of their own future. Very few actively dislike foreigners.

As stated else where on this thread individual immigration decisions can sometimes look odd. We've got a contrasting one in DM today for a guy who's lived in America for 30+ years being deported to U.K. because he committed a crime. Rules are rules but and knee jerk reactions changing the law to tough cases usually make bad laws.

The Dangerous Dogs Act says hi.

Woofs hi?

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.

it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson

What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?

The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.

Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.

Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.

Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?

I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.

Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.

Yet it's all the loony Leavers who are lining up to defend this decision.

Thanks for adding another synonym to the Meeksian thesaurus: 'loony Leavers' = those who support the rule of law.

There is nothing in the rule of law that required her to be deported. I realise that you're callous, but try not to be terminally dim as well.

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.

it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson

What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?

The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.

Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.

Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.

Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?

I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.

Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.

Yet it's all the loony Leavers who are lining up to defend this decision.

Thanks for adding another synonym to the Meeksian thesaurus: 'loony Leavers' = those who support the rule of law.

There is nothing in the rule of law that required her to be deported. I realise that you're callous, but try not to be terminally dim as well.

She was deported unlawfully?

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.

it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson

What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?

The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.

Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.

Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.

Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?

I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.

Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.

Yet it's all the loony Leavers who are lining up to defend this decision.

Thanks for adding another synonym to the Meeksian thesaurus: 'loony Leavers' = those who support the rule of law.

There is nothing in the rule of law that required her to be deported. I realise that you're callous, but try not to be terminally dim as well.

She was deported unlawfully?

That remains to be seen. But either way, the rule of law did not require her deportation.

foxinsoxuk said:

Mortimer said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

There was a 9.2% swing from the Conservatives to Labour in Gorton in 2015. An astonishing result given the national trends. I don't think I have seen a bigger swing in favour of Labour at that election.

Of course it was results like this that made the Labour vote so much less efficient than it had been in the Blair landslides. Piling up votes where they did least good.

I think Corbyn exacerbates that tendency too. He does appeal to a hard core Labour supporter far more left wing that the country as a whole. Kieran's analysis shows that this is at the cost of repelling those whose support is needed to do well overall. If that is right then the current polling/electoral models probably understate the damage he would do in an election campaign.

I'd have thought Manchester Gorton (like Brighton, Cambridge, Bristol West, and left-wing inner London) is Corbynism ground zero.

If nothing else it should tell us about the measure of his current appeal in his heartlands.

Hmm...won't we get a really chronic turnout after a very low key campaign where most the parties are reluctant to spend much on a foregone conclusion? Labour will then blame an apparent fall in support of the loss of a very "popular" MP.

Perfect seat for a returning prince over the water, mind.

Whether of the Balls or Miliband variety....

Labour selections are under control of local committees, and have made local selections in all the byelections since Jezza took office. No way is Jezza parachuting anyone in. It will be a local selection by local people.

I doubt Jezza would be overly keen on a Miliband or Balls return.

That said, I doubt Miliband would win a Labour leadership election, almost irrespective of the opposition. Too much history with Blair and too little contact these last five years.

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

RobD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.

it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson

What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?

The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.

Awful spin Al. Antifrank would never have made such a rookie error.

Almost everyone who has defended the decision has said how individual cases in immigration issues can often be sad, and how that is unfortunate.

Stop trying to fit every single bloody story to your Brexit sadness, pls?

I realise that your sense of decency is so shrivelled post-Brexit that you cannot see it, but the alternative in this case was obvious. But the headbanger Brexit supporters are determined to see this woman's deportation defended.

Not everything is about Brexit - unless you're an obsessed Remainer.

Yet it's all the loony Leavers who are lining up to defend this decision.

Thanks for adding another synonym to the Meeksian thesaurus: 'loony Leavers' = those who support the rule of law.

There is nothing in the rule of law that required her to be deported. I realise that you're callous, but try not to be terminally dim as well.

She was deported unlawfully?

That remains to be seen. But either way, the rule of law did not require her deportation.

Her deportation must have been required by law, otherwise it wouldn't have been done.

The rule of law can allow for more than one course of action. And your faith in the executive always acting in accordance with the law is somewhere between touching and terrifying.

So the Oscars selection committee's attempt to pat themselves on the back by choosing critic's pick Moonlight over the perhaps more frivolous La La Land has instead led to the biggest gaffe in the history of the Oscars which is dominating all the coverage. I expect the Orange One is preparing a tweet laced with schadenfreude as we speak

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.

Ms Clennell was denied a right to enter the country six times between 1997 and 2007 according to the article. That was Brexit-related was it?

When she failed in a seventh go, whilst physically in the UK, the consequence had to be deportation.

The threshold for deportation in this country is very high.

Theresa May braced for a second Scottish independence referendum https://t.co/kXBeVOHS8U https://t.co/6iui4dyxMh

Any idea how this will play out? Assuming refusing it will only fan the flames. Grant them the referendum and see what happens.

Razedabode said:

Theresa May braced for a second Scottish independence referendum https://t.co/kXBeVOHS8U https://t.co/6iui4dyxMh

Any idea how this will play out? Assuming refusing it will only fan the flames. Grant them the referendum and see what happens.

She certainly won't grant any referendum until Brexit has been completed and the SNP win an overall majority at the next Holyrood elections with it in their manifesto (or at the bare minimum maintain the present majority with the Scottish Greens)

MarqueeMark said:

To be fair, I don't think Gorton is any test of anybody. It will be a huge Labour win. Making much of who comes second really will be for just us obsessives.

But Farron has had 18 months in the job to get himself out there and to become known by the public. Failing to do that is more than a mild criticism.

After all, he has been party leader longer than Corbyn.....

Yet, despite not being known by the public, the Lib Dems are winning local elections, and won a parliamentary seat off the Conservatives. That's a massive improvement from where they were two years ago. It's hardly a failure.

I don't particularly like Farron as a person, and his politics don't really match mine. I'm not exactly a fan. But I can see that he's doing exactly what the Lib Dems need. And as I've said passim, after a while he'll hand over to someone more saleable generally.

In the unlikely event of a second referendum I hope that Alastair Meeks is the national Remain spokesman.

https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/836128986535235584

CarlottaVance said:

Most of the accounts are omitting non-trivial details.

Arrived UK 1988
Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain'
1993 - left UK
1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained'
1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.

When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.

Not particularly commenting on the rights and wrongs of this case but one of the many weird things about immigration rules is that when the voters complain there are too many immigrants and they tighten them up, it becomes harder to leave. I'd be in a similar position; I have permanent residence in Japan, but if I had to go back to Britain to look after relatives or whatever I'd lose it, and I'd have to start again with the visa process from scratch. (In Japan's case unlike Britain they don't have all kinds of horrible restrictions on spouse visas so it probably wouldn't be too hard, but you never know.)

The way around it would be to naturalize as Japanese before leaving, assuming I'd still be able to get into Britain if I was foreign. Becoming a citizen of a country so that you can leave it seems kind-of unintuitive...

On the macro scale the fact that restrictions make it harder to leave sometimes seems to make immigration clampdowns counter-productive. For instance, the US beefed up border security in 1993 and 1994, with the result that:

Although the intent of border enforcement was to discourage migrants from coming to the United States, in practice it backfired, instead discouraging them from returning home to Mexico. Having experienced the risks and having paid the costs of gaining entry, undocumented men increasingly hunkered down and stayed in the United States, rather than circulating back to face the gantlet once more. As a result, the rate of return migration began to fall after 1986 and accelerated with the launching of the border operations in 1993 and 1994.

Because net migration equals the difference between those entering and leaving the United States, the falling rate of return produced a huge increase in the net volume of undocumented migration.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/18/donald-trump-immigration-border/

F1: incidentally, don't tend to mention the lists I use on Twitter (handy for categorising stuff), but if you want to follow testing there'll probably be a huge amount of tweets and photographs of the new cars:
https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/lists/f1-stuff

It's also the first stop for me if I want to check for breaking news on F1 (which has proved profitable once or twice in the past).

@edmundintokyo - interesting, thanks. Although I suppose you are becoming a citizen of that county to ensure you can get back in. That's less counterintuitive.

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: incidentally, don't tend to mention the lists I use on Twitter (handy for categorising stuff), but if you want to follow testing there'll probably be a huge amount of tweets and photographs of the new cars:
https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/lists/f1-stuff

It's also the first stop for me if I want to check for breaking news on F1 (which has proved profitable once or twice in the past).

Thanks for that.

I must admit I'm finding my love of F1 is waning considerably: I'm unsure if it's the fact I cannot watch all races live on TV, the fact I'm now a father with other time pressures, or the spectacle itself.

I think this is the first year I've not been obsessively following all the car launches, and last year was the first one I've never bought an Autosport.

I haven't read the immigration story, but as I'm about to go ...

Mr Antifrank ... might be making an accurate point about the law. I'll give it a read.
Mr Meeks ... probably an anti-Brexit rant. Ignore.

I fully expect the latter to revert to the former when we finally leave.

Mr. Jessop, my own interest is less than it was. I think it's a combination of the television coverage (and when it is on Channel 4 I can't watch anything pre- or post-race because Steve Jones grates), and the on-track issues (dominant Mercedes, new circuits being rubbish).

We'll have to see how the technical changes affect overtaking, and how close, or not, it is at the sharp end. At least if Mercedes are dominant, my Bottas tip will come off.

In case anyone missed it:

https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/836130474946924544

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Most of the accounts are omitting non-trivial details.

Arrived UK 1988
Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain'
1993 - left UK
1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained'
1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.

When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.

The way around it would be to naturalize as Japanese before leaving, assuming I'd still be able to get into Britain if I was foreign. Becoming a citizen of a country so that you can leave it seems kind-of unintuitive...

The problem there would be the Japanese would require you to renounce your British citizenship......the British, on the other hand, don't mind if you have citizenship of more than one country - all they do is point out that they can't help you if you get in trouble in that country.

Not for the first time, the British are simultaneously more liberal and the bad guys.....

Right - that's why I haven't naturalized Japanese already. Back when I used to live in a town with a lot of South American immigrants a lot of them seemed to just keep their Peruvian or Brazilian passports and not tell the Japanese authorities, but that seems high-risk and I'm not sure if they're still getting away with it.

PS. The dual nationality part is more liberal in Britain but the issuing of spouse visas certainly isn't. Pre-Brexit some people used to claim that once they didn't have to take all these Europeans the British would be able to be less evil on non-EU spouse visas; I didn't believe it at the time but I'd be interested to hear if there's any sign of movement in that direction.

chestnut said:

Razedabode said:

Theresa May braced for a second Scottish independence referendum https://t.co/kXBeVOHS8U https://t.co/6iui4dyxMh

Any idea how this will play out? Assuming refusing it will only fan the flames. Grant them the referendum and see what happens.

I would assume that May would not only influence the timing (post 2020) but also insist that the question specifically mentions being in the EU and leaving the UK single market.

After all, that is the justification for trying to re-run a 'once in a generation' referendum.

Yes ideally something like 'Do you wish Scotland to leave the United Kingdom to rejoin the European Union'

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.

it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson

What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?

The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.

There's no reason to believe that similar cases didn't occur at any stage after we introduced immigration controls for Commonwealth nationals.

For example this case:

' An A-level student has been deported to Mauritius after a last-ditch bid to let her stay in the country was denied.

A judge at London's Law Courts refused to grant an emergency injunction to block the removal of Mauritian teenager Yashika Bageerathi from Britain.

The 19-year-old has now been sent back alone to her home country, separated from her mother and her siblings, after immigration authorities refused her claim for asylum.

The decision slaps down a high-profile campaign which had sought to reverse the decision to deport Ms Bageerathi, a promising student, before she was able to take her A-level exams. '

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595232/Mauritian-student-denied-asylum-despite-campaign-let-finish-A-levels-deported-tonight.html

Anyone want to check back to see who was or wasn't getting upset by that deportation.

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Most of the accounts are omitting non-trivial details.

Arrived UK 1988
Married 1992 - granted indefinite leave to remain - provided she did 'remain'
1993 - left UK
1999 - returned to UK - 'indefinite leave to remain' had lapsed as she had not done what she'd said she'd do and 'remained'
1999 - applied for indefinite leave to remain - has been turned down multiple times.

When you apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' its made very clear that you do have to 'remain' and prolonged absences - a couple of years, say - would lead to it being revoked - she was out for six.

The way around it would be to naturalize as Japanese before leaving, assuming I'd still be able to get into Britain if I was foreign. Becoming a citizen of a country so that you can leave it seems kind-of unintuitive...

The problem there would be the Japanese would require you to renounce your British citizenship......the British, on the other hand, don't mind if you have citizenship of more than one country - all they do is point out that they can't help you if you get in trouble in that country.

Not for the first time, the British are simultaneously more liberal and the bad guys.....

Right - that's why I haven't naturalized Japanese already. Back when I used to live in a town with a lot of South American immigrants a lot of them seemed to just keep their Peruvian or Brazilian passports and not tell the Japanese authorities, but that seems high-risk and I'm not sure if they're still getting away with it.

When the US didn't allow dual citizenship a British friend of mine asked the British Embassy if he'd have to give up his British passport on becoming a US Citizen. "Why? Are you going to tell them? We certainly aren't!"

Mr. Sandpit, does seem a bit odd.

Most teams are going for one driver per day. I think Mercedes is having both drivers in every day, which may be indicative of confidence in the car rather than some sort of maximum equality measure.

another_richard said:

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.

it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson

What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?

The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.

There's no reason to believe that similar cases didn't occur at any stage after we introduced immigration controls for Commonwealth nationals.

For example this case:

' An A-level student has been deported to Mauritius after a last-ditch bid to let her stay in the country was denied.

A judge at London's Law Courts refused to grant an emergency injunction to block the removal of Mauritian teenager Yashika Bageerathi from Britain.

The 19-year-old has now been sent back alone to her home country, separated from her mother and her siblings, after immigration authorities refused her claim for asylum.

The decision slaps down a high-profile campaign which had sought to reverse the decision to deport Ms Bageerathi, a promising student, before she was able to take her A-level exams. '

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595232/Mauritian-student-denied-asylum-despite-campaign-let-finish-A-levels-deported-tonight.html

Anyone want to check back to see who was or wasn't getting upset by that deportation.

Why would someone from Mauritius apply for asylum in the UK - were the Mauritian government persecuting her for being their political opponent or was her life in danger if she returned there?

CarlottaVance said:

Life is about choices - she doesn't like the consequences of the one she made.

Aside from whether the rules are being correctly applied in this case, it's not obvious why it's in anyone's interests to force people to choose between looking after their parents when they get sick and looking after their spouse when they get sick later on.

I think the reasonable cause for disagreement here (if the case is being correctly reported) is whether the problem is these specific rules, the way the rules were applied, or whether the entire enterprise is a fool's errand.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, does seem a bit odd.

Most teams are going for one driver per day. I think Mercedes is having both drivers in every day, which may be indicative of confidence in the car rather than some sort of maximum equality measure.

Most teams go the the testing with only a single car, and alternate the drivers daily. It may be that Mercedes have two cars ready, or can quickly change the setup to give two drivers a chance each day. If the latter it could also be human-factors related - the new cars are more physically demanding to drive and they probably want to avoid them being too tired towards the end of a long day.

MonikerDiCanio said:

In 2016 Japan took a grand total of 28 refugees in the midst of a global refugee crisis ;

https://www.ft.com/content/528f996e-f1b4-11e6-8758-6876151821a6

No wonder you choose to live there.

Japan's refugee policy is horrible, but no, obviously it isn't the reason why I live here. Who chooses what country to live in based on its refugee policy? I mean apart from refugees.

Essexit said:

HYUFD said:

Dixie said:

dr_spyn said:

If Labour fail to win Gorton, I would hope Corbyn would be finished. The downside might be wall to wall coverage of Tim Farron hiring a larger minibus.

Corbyn would definitely go. Labour will win, I bet any money.

Given Corbyn can squeeze the Green vote who came second in 2015 and it is full of students Manchester Gorton could even produce a rare pro Labour swing, it is an ideal by election for Corbyn after the Copeland disaster

They'll be more than cancelled out by Lab-Lib defections, surely. The Greens will portobello lose second place though.

Morning all,

And, right on cue, another by-election Corbyn doesn't need. Will be interesting to see how the Progressive Alliance is working in this one.

Sandpit said:

another_richard said:

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I'm sorry, I can't get too worked up about Ms Clennell. The Leave vote was a vote to be unpleasant to foreigners and to self-justify it as something else afterwards. Ms Clennell's deportation and the reaction to it by Leavers is entirely consistent with that.

it;s the way you tell them antifrank Carson

What else can you conclude when the headbangers gleefully praise the deportation of a woman married to a British citizen since 1990, with children and a grandchild based here who are British citizens?

The loss of the country's sense of decency is to be deeply sorrowed. But this is an instance of something that has already happened and not itself a watershed.

There's no reason to believe that similar cases didn't occur at any stage after we introduced immigration controls for Commonwealth nationals.

For example this case:

' An A-level student has been deported to Mauritius after a last-ditch bid to let her stay in the country was denied.

A judge at London's Law Courts refused to grant an emergency injunction to block the removal of Mauritian teenager Yashika Bageerathi from Britain.

The 19-year-old has now been sent back alone to her home country, separated from her mother and her siblings, after immigration authorities refused her claim for asylum.

The decision slaps down a high-profile campaign which had sought to reverse the decision to deport Ms Bageerathi, a promising student, before she was able to take her A-level exams. '

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595232/Mauritian-student-denied-asylum-despite-campaign-let-finish-A-levels-deported-tonight.html

Anyone want to check back to see who was or wasn't getting upset by that deportation.

Why would someone from Mauritius apply for asylum in the UK - were the Mauritian government persecuting her for being their political opponent or was her life in danger if she returned there?

IIRC it was said to be an abusive family situation.

Review of the May biography:

But Theresa May’s career so far suggests it would be a bad mistake to underestimate her.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/theresa-may-way-uk-politics-prime-minister

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

Life is about choices - she doesn't like the consequences of the one she made.

Aside from whether the rules are being correctly applied in this case, it's not obvious why it's in anyone's interests to force people to choose between looking after their parents when they get sick and looking after their spouse when they get sick later on.

I think the reasonable cause for disagreement here (if the case is being correctly reported) is whether the problem is these specific rules, the way the rules were applied, or whether the entire enterprise is a fool's errand.

Some countries don't allow dual nationality. If people from those countries choose to marry elsewhere they are then forced into a choice of where they ultimately wish to end up. Not a choice they want - but a choice they face. They need to discuss this choice with family and friends in advance and make a mature considered decision.
I suspect Singapore takes this route because they are too small to be a viable 'fall back optoin' if their citizens leave but then wish to return later in life. In the freedom or living standards dilemma they chose living standards.

CarlottaVance said:

Patrick said:

This lady in 20 years seems to have failed to even apply for citizenship!

Life is about choices - she doesn't like the consequences of the one she made.

In pre-Brexit Britain that might have sounded brutal....

Gorton should be an interesting by election. It has the good the bad and the ugly.....

Manchester University the (old) Hacienda and the Etihad.

A possibility for the Lib Dems I'd guess

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/836128986535235584

But that's not the whole story. In 2010 the Lib Dems got 32%; in 2005 33%

I'm making an early prediction: the Lib Dems should be looking for at least 25% in this constituency, particularly if it was heavily remain.

However much will depend on the state and strength of the local Lib Dem constituency party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Gorton_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s

They had a Muslim candidate in a seat with a big Muslim electorate, and the Iraq war was still a live issue. That flattered the Lib Dem score.